Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Breotan wrote:
Criminals only steal money to buy a gun if they can't steal a gun directly/easily. Even then, how many people do you know who sell cheap guns on the black market? I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for someone like that.

I take it you don't live in an ethnically diverse area?

Gangbangers and drug addicts of all races are usually easy enough to find if you aren't in the suburbs, you just look for areas with plummeting property values, in the suburbs you ask the trashy looking white kids that hang out at all hours in parking lots or 24 hours food places. Same technique goes for spotting drugs. Even if they don't have it chances are that they can point you to somebody that does. Meth heads in particular seem to be drawn to Walmart like a magnet.


If you can't spot them simply by having hemp leaf logos on their shirt try and look for dudes like this:





In the city look for the guy standing out on the corner at 2 am by himself that seems know everyone and shakes their hand.

You left out the part where you wind up on COPS as the undercover police handcuff you and put you in the back of a police cruiser.

 CptJake wrote:
I don't think so, if they want to do it right, they need to go through the amendment process. Heller and some other recent cases put too much precedent the other way for SCOTUS to reverse in the near term.

Nah, the amendment is vague enough that it can be interpreted as having no relation to private personal gun ownership, if people choose to see it that way. People did, in fact, see it that way for a very long time. The gun lobby set about changing that and succeeded.

An effective anti-gun lobby (which could theoretically exist at some point in the future) could change popular opinion on how to read the 2nd.

Of course, my belief the gun control types want to do it the right way is non-existent.

And now you're just being silly. First up, as already pointed out 'gun control types' aren't a hive mind. Second up, the idea of a 'right way' is meaningless - if you can convince a majority of the people that the 2nd doesn't apply to private guns, and that majority can impact politics long enough to get a majority on the SC, then that's just as 'right' a way of handling the issue through the political system as any other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Not even close. Guns are fairly easy to manufacture as long as you aren't looking for competition-level precision. You can build a basic machine gun with nothing but materials and tools you can get at your local hardware store, and if you have access to a decent machine shop you can do even better. The only reason we don't see more criminals building their own guns is that it's so easy to get someone else to do it right now.

Uh, how exactly do you reconcile that with the almost complete absence of homemade guns in the rest of the developed world? Why aren't the streets of Europe filled with guns made with 'nothing but materials and tools you can get at your local hardware store'?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
In my context, they may as well be. It is leftist politicians who vote lock step on the issue and use emotion vice facts to push an agenda...

And of course, the right wing politicians would never make emotive, contentless arguments about freedom and liberty to assert gun rights...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And it would be followed by immense outrage.

Politically, congress and the POTUS would have to act immediately to counter it or risk losing their seats to their opponents. The pressure would be very strong.

Thats if the SCOTUS wasn't overwhelmed by an angry mob first.

slight exaggeration, but you get the idea

In the current political environment, sure. But you're forgetting that political moods change, the fortunes of various causes will ebb. It's often hard to understand that because the issues of the day seem so important and the idea that at some point people just might not care that much, or indeed that you might not care so much about the issue is hard to understand, but reading political history will teach you otherwise.

This is why I've argued that the smartest decision for the gun lobby right now would be to move towards grounded, sensible gun laws. Because right now the laws are a mess and will continue to be a political hot topic until they are settled... and it is much, much better to put the reform in place while you've got the upper hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
He means that the solution to violence isn't to legislate the tools of violence, but the causes of violence. Like unemployment, mental health, drugs, gangs, etc...

Its treating the symptom and not the disease.

Except the US isn't a magical snowflake. Unemployment, mental health, drugs, gangs etc impact the rest of the developed world as well. And yet we have nothing like the murder rate you see in the US.

Sooner or later this starts to sound like one of those people who still comes up with excuses to keep smoking, and in this case it's talking about how sun exposure, chemicals and all sorts of other things also impacted his cancer, and so maybe it wasn't the smokes. I mean for you want to smoke then smoke, but just fething be honest about the consequences.

You want lots of guns, cool... but just be honest about what that means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
There were literally millions of guns in circulation after the wars. It would have been impossible to account for them all. Many actually were kept, and a lot were sold. They still turn up in fields from time to time.

My wife tells a story of her grandad and his brother in Italy when the Germany surrendered, they raided the armory and pinched whatever hadn't already been stolen. Sold most of it to mafia.

I've also read accounts from Germany at the end of the war, that spoke about how anyone who wanted a gun could get one, but there wasn't much point because anyone who intended to do you harm would have much bigger guns than anything you'd be willing to carry around all day.

And while there are probably still some of those weapons floating around the black market today, anyone who argued that Europe had an impossible gun problem that could never be resolved with restrictions would be laughed at. This doesn't mean the US should ban its guns, but it does mean the argument that there's no point in banning them because of the number of guns already in circulation is a bad one.

 d-usa wrote:
The biggest one that comes to mind was segregation, which was held constitutional many times until it wasn't. I don't know how many (if any) others there might be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Gun controll types don't need that many numbers. All they need is a shift of one SCOTUS judge.

I don't think so, if they want to do it right, they need to go through the amendment process. Heller and some other recent cases put too much precedent the other way for SCOTUS to reverse in the near term.

Of course, my belief the gun control types want to do it the right way is non-existent.

There were lots of Supreme Court cases that ruled the same way on an issue until ONE case completely switched it up. Brown vs Board of Education comes to mind.

All it would take would be one swing vote to change the meaning of the word "militia" and render the 2nd useless.

Not that i am pushing for that or that I think that would happen. But it would be a single ruling accomplished by switching a single swing vote.

And it would be followed by immense outrage.

Politically, congress and the POTUS would have to act immediately to counter it or risk losing their seats to their opponents. The pressure would be very strong.

Thats if the SCOTUS wasn't overwhelmed by an angry mob first.

slight exaggeration, but you get the idea

Well, anybody trying to angry mob the SCOTUS is a constitution hating fool.

But yeah, it would be very unpopular. I don't think it would happen anytime soon. I was just commenting on how it wouldn't be very hard to actually do.

You're forgetting about the 1964 Civil Rights Act.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
So this thread has turned to how to spot drug dealers at 2.00AM?

We wouldn't have this problem if theAztecs had had better border control...

 sebster wrote:
Nah, the amendment is vague enough that it can be interpreted as having no relation to private personal gun ownership, if people choose to see it that way. People did, in fact, see it that way for a very long time. The gun lobby set about changing that and succeeded.

An effective anti-gun lobby (which could theoretically exist at some point in the future) could change popular opinion on how to read the 2nd.

They might run into a little hurdle as the people who framed the Constitution were pretty clear;
"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story

Not too mention, as has already been pointed out, recent case law, including SCOTUS decisions, clearly disagree with that point of view. I don't think such recently set SCOTUS precedent is going to be reversed.

 sebster wrote:

Uh, how exactly do you reconcile that with the almost complete absence of homemade guns in the rest of the developed world? Why aren't the streets of Europe filled with guns made with 'nothing but materials and tools you can get at your local hardware store'?

Different cultures, different attitudes, different ideas.

One can look at Venezuela, where firearms are now *very* tightly legislated and are basically unobtainable legally for civilians. Home-made guns are increasingly in use there since the closing of all civilian firearm stores and massive gun control measures were introduced in 2012.

And while there are probably still some of those weapons floating around the black market today, anyone who argued that Europe had an impossible gun problem that could never be resolved with restrictions would be laughed at. This doesn't mean the US should ban its guns, but it does mean the argument that there's no point in banning them because of the number of guns already in circulation is a bad one.

These are very different circumstances, and in many places they had soldiers going door to door collecting weapons. That would be...difficult in the US.

 Vaktathi wrote:
These are very different circumstances, and in many places they had soldiers going door to door collecting weapons. That would be...difficult in the US.

Agreed. The Continental US is quite simply massive. When you can have people who live over 2 hours away from ANY form of law enforcement, medical help, etc. the ability to enforce certain laws become highly problematic.

Not only are there people who live "too far" from any real impactful law enforcement, IF things like firearms are banned, do you sacrifice one, or two, or more LEOs for 4+ hours of a day to go out and confiscate those weapons, or do you take their word for it?

The problem with sacrificing the LEOs to go collect guns is, once the LEOs are sacrificed their guns join the pool of weapons needing to be collected, and you eventually run out of LEOs willing to attempt the collection.

 CptJake wrote:
The problem with sacrificing the LEOs to go collect guns is, once the LEOs are sacrificed their guns join the pool of weapons needing to be collected, and you eventually run out of LEOs willing to attempt the collection.

No... I meant "sacrificing" LEOs because they will be gone for 4+ hours to collect someone else's guns, meanwhile there could be another, higher priority call come in...It's a risk management thing.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The problem with sacrificing the LEOs to go collect guns is, once the LEOs are sacrificed their guns join the pool of weapons needing to be collected, and you eventually run out of LEOs willing to attempt the collection.

No... I meant "sacrificing" LEOs because they will be gone for 4+ hours to collect someone else's guns, meanwhile there could be another, higher priority call come in...It's a risk management thing.

It is a risk management thing the other way too...

I knew what you meant, but suspect that would be the least of LE worries were they forced to implement such draconian measures. I suspect at the local level, especially in rural areas, several county sheriffs and deputies would flat out refuse to enforce that type of measure.

Confiscating guns probably isn't necessary. Most people want to stay within the law and will either relinquish their guns, or find a way to own them legally (applying for a special hunting permit for example). The guns that my dad owned in Ireland were deactivated voluntarily. It was during a time when there were troubles in Ireland with the IRA. A lot of people preferred to give up their guns rather than risk being associated.

 Smacks wrote:
Confiscating guns probably isn't necessary. Most people want to stay within the law and will either relinquish their guns, or find a way to own them legally (applying for a special hunting permit for example). The guns that my dad owned in Ireland were deactivated voluntarily. It was during a time when there were troubles in Ireland with the IRA. A lot of people preferred to give up their guns rather than risk being associated.

I guarantee it would be different here. Remember that weapons are a fundamental right here. Not a privilege that can be revoked.

 Smacks wrote:
Confiscating guns probably isn't necessary. Most people want to stay within the law and will either relinquish their guns, or find a way to own them legally (applying for a special hunting permit for example). The guns that my dad owned in Ireland were deactivated voluntarily. It was during a time when there were troubles in Ireland with the IRA. A lot of people preferred to give up their guns rather than risk being associated.

You just had an armed standoff of dozens vs. dozens of federales over...unpaid rent. Do you seriously think that would happen here? It certainly isn't in NY and Conn.

 Smacks wrote:
Confiscating guns probably isn't necessary. Most people want to stay within the law and will either relinquish their guns, or find a way to own them legally (applying for a special hunting permit for example). The guns that my dad owned in Ireland were deactivated voluntarily. It was during a time when there were troubles in Ireland with the IRA. A lot of people preferred to give up their guns rather than risk being associated.

The part I highlighted is important. When the effect of The Law is to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into law breakers, there just may be a problem with The Law. And we have already seen instances where these otherwise law abiding citizens have refused to comply with these types of measures. Connecticut’s new laws requiring registration of magazines with more than a 10 round capacity and 'assault weapons' was not very successful.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Agreed. The Continental US is quite simply massive. When you can have people who live over 2 hours away from ANY form of law enforcement, medical help, etc. the ability to enforce certain laws become highly problematic.

Not only are there people who live "too far" from any real impactful law enforcement, IF things like firearms are banned, do you sacrifice one, or two, or more LEOs for 4+ hours of a day to go out and confiscate those weapons, or do you take their word for it?

Indeed, additionally, you'd have major issues with people complying, both citizens and lawn enforcement, and god help whoever is in charge if they try it with actual soldiers.

Smacks wrote:Confiscating guns probably isn't necessary. Most people want to stay within the law and will either relinquish their guns, or find a way to own them legally (applying for a special hunting permit for example). The guns that my dad owned in Ireland were deactivated voluntarily. It was during a time when there were troubles in Ireland with the IRA. A lot of people preferred to give up their guns rather than risk being associated.

There's no major "group" to be associated with in the US however, especially not anything particularly nation-wide, and, fundamentally, the right to keep firearms is as much of a right as free speech is in the US, putting such a restriction on it like that either opens the door to putting similar (and far more widely less approved) restrictions on other freedoms (speech, assembly, etc) or the "slippery slope" aspect will keep any such restrictions from being enacted.

 Smacks wrote:
Confiscating guns probably isn't necessary. Most people want to stay within the law and will either relinquish their guns, or find a way to own them legally (applying for a special hunting permit for example). The guns that my dad owned in Ireland were deactivated voluntarily. It was during a time when there were troubles in Ireland with the IRA. A lot of people preferred to give up their guns rather than risk being associated.

Te chances of that happening in the US are pretty slim.

And by pretty slim I mean non-existent.

Well, except maybe in New York City and California.

 Smacks wrote:
Confiscating guns probably isn't necessary. Most people want to stay within the law and will either relinquish their guns, or find a way to own them legally (applying for a special hunting permit for example). The guns that my dad owned in Ireland were deactivated voluntarily. It was during a time when there were troubles in Ireland with the IRA. A lot of people preferred to give up their guns rather than risk being associated.

So what we need for gun control is the resurgence of a centuries old sectarian campaign to rid a country of invaders, a huge upturn in terrorist activity, and the threat that law abiding citizens might be shot as soldiers are deployed to keep the province under control. Yeah, that doesn't really compare well with the situation in the US.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Confiscating guns probably isn't necessary. Most people want to stay within the law and will either relinquish their guns, or find a way to own them legally (applying for a special hunting permit for example). The guns that my dad owned in Ireland were deactivated voluntarily. It was during a time when there were troubles in Ireland with the IRA. A lot of people preferred to give up their guns rather than risk being associated.

You just had an armed standoff of dozens vs. dozens of federales over...unpaid rent. Do you seriously think that would happen here? It certainly isn't in NY and Conn.

There was a lot more to it than just what you say, but you bring up an excellent point. People are not voluntarily give up their guns in the forseeable future and any attempt to take them by force is going to truly bring down the lightning for both sides.

Relapse wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Confiscating guns probably isn't necessary. Most people want to stay within the law and will either relinquish their guns, or find a way to own them legally (applying for a special hunting permit for example). The guns that my dad owned in Ireland were deactivated voluntarily. It was during a time when there were troubles in Ireland with the IRA. A lot of people preferred to give up their guns rather than risk being associated.

You just had an armed standoff of dozens vs. dozens of federales over...unpaid rent. Do you seriously think that would happen here? It certainly isn't in NY and Conn.

There was a lot more to it than just what you say, but you bring up an excellent point. People are not voluntarily give up their guns in the forseeable future and any attempt to take them by force is going to truly bring down the lightning for both sides.

I paid good hard arned money into my collection of fire arms. Best intice me with some money to turn them over instead of "collecting" them because if not I am more likely buying a seal rifle container and going 4 feet deep storage

Just curious, how did the collection of gold go after it was made illegal?

 Jihadin wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Confiscating guns probably isn't necessary. Most people want to stay within the law and will either relinquish their guns, or find a way to own them legally (applying for a special hunting permit for example). The guns that my dad owned in Ireland were deactivated voluntarily. It was during a time when there were troubles in Ireland with the IRA. A lot of people preferred to give up their guns rather than risk being associated.

You just had an armed standoff of dozens vs. dozens of federales over...unpaid rent. Do you seriously think that would happen here? It certainly isn't in NY and Conn.

There was a lot more to it than just what you say, but you bring up an excellent point. People are not voluntarily give up their guns in the forseeable future and any attempt to take them by force is going to truly bring down the lightning for both sides.

I paid good hard arned money into my collection of fire arms. Best intice me with some money to turn them over instead of "collecting" them because if not I am more likely buying a seal rifle container and going 4 feet deep storage

I bet I can find documentation of a tragic boating accident in which any high capacity magazines and any guns I may have ever owned went to the bottom a a very deep lake.

 CptJake wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Confiscating guns probably isn't necessary. Most people want to stay within the law and will either relinquish their guns, or find a way to own them legally (applying for a special hunting permit for example). The guns that my dad owned in Ireland were deactivated voluntarily. It was during a time when there were troubles in Ireland with the IRA. A lot of people preferred to give up their guns rather than risk being associated.

You just had an armed standoff of dozens vs. dozens of federales over...unpaid rent. Do you seriously think that would happen here? It certainly isn't in NY and Conn.

There was a lot more to it than just what you say, but you bring up an excellent point. People are not voluntarily give up their guns in the forseeable future and any attempt to take them by force is going to truly bring down the lightning for both sides.

I paid good hard arned money into my collection of fire arms. Best intice me with some money to turn them over instead of "collecting" them because if not I am more likely buying a seal rifle container and going 4 feet deep storage

I bet I can find documentation of a tragic boating accident in which any high capacity magazines and any guns I may have ever owned went to the bottom a a very deep lake.

The book Chicken Hawk comes to mind.....

 d-usa wrote:
Just curious, how did the collection of gold go after it was made illegal?

Not well.

Many old school families kept their golds.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Just curious, how did the collection of gold go after it was made illegal?

Not well.

Many old school families kept their golds.

How did the government try to get it all back?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Just curious, how did the collection of gold go after it was made illegal?

Not well.

Many old school families kept their golds.

It would go far less well, I think if the government tried to sieze guns.

Not least because I'm betting a lot more Americans have guns now than had gold then.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Just curious, how did the collection of gold go after it was made illegal?

Not well.

Many old school families kept their golds.

How did the government try to get it all back?

I look at it like this...

Did the Prohibition work at all?

 Hordini wrote:
Not least because I'm betting a lot more Americans have guns now than had gold then.

Plus the fact that guns shoot bullets a lot better than gold!

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Just curious, how did the collection of gold go after it was made illegal?

Not well.

Many old school families kept their golds.

How did the government try to get it all back?

I look at it like this...

Did the Prohibition work at all?

I was just curious how it went. I know prohibition was a giant failure, but I don't recall ever really hearing about the efforts to get all the gold out of circulation.